Cultural and Biological Evolution

The cultural evolutions of humans are of far greater importance than the biological evolution that created us.  As was brought up, humans all have the capacity for language, but it our culture that divides us.  Humans are all genetically the same, but it could be said that every human being, or race, has the same potential as any other.  The greatest divide between races is the different cultures between us.  Some cultures, like the Native Americans or tribal Africans, are more spiritual and focus on a closer communion with nature.  Others, like the European culture, focused on dominating and controlling nature.  From here, we see that the more warmongering and conquestful and land-dominating became the major power on the planet.  Not to say that some cultures are wrong, just that the Western culture came to dominate the others.  The cultural background of the West probably gave an "evolutionary" advantage to Europeans that allowed them to dominate the world.

Human-directed Evolution

Humans have gotten to the point where we can direct and control our own evolution.  Eugenics has been one of the earliest ways of directing  our own evolution, but is a great invasion of people's privacy and their bodies, as these programs are usually done against their will.  Advances in genetics have opened up the possibility of genetically engineering developing fetuses for better traits, or curing autism.  However, genetic engineering is a new field with every little knowledge or experience compared to other practical applications of biology.  On top of that, we hardly understand our own genes; millions of sequences' purpose is unknown to us, even after we have decoded our gnome.  However both eugenics and genetic engineering carry grave risks, as we did not fully understand what we are doing.    

In another order of science, robotics and prosthetics have come a long way, to the point where crippled human beings can replace missing limbs and digits with new artificial ones.  However we still cannot create artificial limbs that are as flexible or dexterous as our natural limbs are.  Still they will come a moment where the machine will surpass us in everywhere and robotic augments might only be available to those with money or influence.  

On all of the above mentioned methods to control our own evolution, we have clearly separated us from natural selection, but we might be unleashing the beast within us if we explore our evolutionary potential when we as a race may not be able to control the rapid change.  And like the biological evolution that preceded us, a new race of humans will have to compete with the old race.  And that could be some class warfare that even Marx could foresee.

Q&A: Does evolution still apply to humans today?

Many social Darwinists hold the belief that evolution still exists in our society.  Evolution, I believe has only a minimal effect on humans today.  Evolution, more or less, works on a species to create those best suited to gathering and obtaining resources.  Humans, having become experts in hunting, and more importantly, masters of agriculture, have little or no need to compete for basic needs like our tribal ancestors had needed.  Humans are not going to be selected unless some bizarre apocalypse takes place, like deadly poison ivy cover the planet, and only those humans who have a genetic immunity to poison ivy would survive.  Also, "useless" traits of humans would not evolve away.  Pinkies and small toes, being considered useless in our current environment, would not gradually evolve out of the humans since they are disadvantageous to surviving and procreating, so they wouldn't suddenly cease to be a part of us.

Q&A: Will people naturally select themselves?

People have been concerned that humans might be the cause of their own extinction.  It has serious merit, considering the mass amounts of nuclear weapons in the world and the growing number of nuclear armed states in the world.  Humans have gotten to the point where our intelligence surpasses our wisdom on controlling weapons of mass destruction.  Humans have been able to control themselves when they developed chemical weapons and thus far have been able to control the use of nuclear weapons.  It is possible that a rouge, irrational state gets control of a nuclear weapon or weapons and sets off a violent chain of events.  It is even possible that humans will develop and master the use of biological weapons which could be a even graver threat to humanity’s survival than nuclear or chemical weapons have ever been.  I gave humanity the benefit of the doubt that they won’t kill themselves, just as they had done before.  Hopefully the next generation of rulers won’t be bothered with the small short-sightedness and prejudices that lead to the deployment of huge amounts of weapons of mass destruction.

Money equals Freedom and Happiness

There is the common saying that money can't buy happiness.  Well maybe it can help bring happiness.  In our modern society, the freest individuals are those who are monetarily successful.  They have a  disproportional share in how our government and country should be run.  People on lower economic rungs have to follow their laws without the same fair share in shaping them.  So money can buy freedom, and part of obtaining freedom is being able to meet your needs.  Since all basic human needs can be meet with money, money is a need.  Freedom comes from money in our society and that means that some people can find their own happiness while others are too poor to obtain their needs and therefore earn a degree of freedom to do what they please.

Self, Society, and Freedom

Although humans are social animals, perhaps the greatest limitation to each individual’s freedom is each other.  We are constantly thinking about how other people will judge us if wear a certain pair of clothes or perform some action out in public.  We’re also affected by peer pressure.  People often give into the will of others over their own at the constant urging of other people.  In many respects, ‘hell is other people.’  Even when we are alone, our minds still think about others would think if they ever found out.  Much of who we are and what we think are defined by society.  Would we still have racism and sexism if we grew up in a vacuum?  While we are constantly afraid of what others think of us, we require social interaction, else we would go crazy.  Solitude would became its only hell soon enough.  

Q&A: How does Existentialism and Marxism coexist with each other?

The two philosophies of Existentialism and Marxism seem to contradict with each other.  One places an importance on the individual and his/her freedom and the other stresses the importance of the group and their place in history.  While it appears that that two cannot coexist, there is actually a overlap of the two philosophies.  Existentialism wants the most freedom for the individual, and Marxism wants the most freedom for the masses.  In a Marxist society, both goals could be met.  A person's private freedom does not have to infringe upon the private freedoms of others.
Of course, young Sartre's radical freedom is at odds with Marxism, as is other existentialist philosophers. Some of the ideas behind existentialism like the idea that life has no meaning can push people to focus on this life and its ills and not to reach for an afterlife that has no empirical evidence for.  Authenticity is a common theme in both philosophies; Marxism wants people to work as how they want to and existentialists want people to be true to themselves.  Both ideologies have some common ground and both could easily mix if they were willing to flex a bit for the other.

Q&A: What are the limits of human freedom?

How far does human freedom go?  Is it as radical as Sartre claims it is?  I would say we are not so free, yet I agree with many of Sartre's points, even those from his earlier years.  Independent of socioeconomic conditions, humans are as free as their physical bodies let them.  Something such as alcoholism is a choice; the disease started with the victim, in full awareness, choosing to take the first drink and then every subsequent drink, though with less judgement and self-awareness.  Between periods of drinking, the victim will be sober and can make more rational decisions, though our endorphins might make the alcoholic feel inclined to drink again.  I also believe that humans could change themselves so that they wouldn't feel sad at a person's death, but I think that would make us emotionally dead, and that is not a life worth living.
In the real world, people are limited by their needs.  To acquire those needs, they need money, but with a lopsided spread of money, some people can not meet or fulfill their needs.  So people must focus themselves to making ends meet, and not to being his/her authentic self.  Some people are freer to pursue what they want than others.  Of course someone can decide that s/he is no longer going to work and is instead going to practice philosophy, art, and literature, but it's possible that s/he could die if they have no means to support themselves as s/he pursues his/her craft.

The Next Socialist Revolution

I feel that the text we read in class seemed to really doubt the possibility of another socialist revolution, especially in America.  While I did not completly agree with Marx, I feel that another socialist revolution could came around.  Maybe not in America (the bourgeoisie establishment has convinced the entire population that socialism is evil), but I think it's possible that yet-to-exist technologies might further widen the gap between rich and poor.  In one game series I have played, humanity has reached a point in their understanding of biology and technology where they can augment humans with cybernetics.  While this allows the disabled to walk, hear, see, etc, again, augmentations are only available to the very wealthy.  Even if someone in the lower castes of society can afford the augments, the body typically rejects the metallic limbs and a series of expensive drugs are needed to keep the body from outright rejecting them.  Throughout the game, there are riots other prices of augments and drugs and society across the globe is at a breaking point.  While the work is entirely fictional, it presents the possibility that some near-future tech could further the divide between the classes and cause a socialist revolution to erupt.

Q&A: How far does modern capitalism stretch today?

As part of Marx's famous theory on the basis of society, the rich should control the ideological superstructure, just as they control the economic base.  Politics, or government, is merely an extension of the corporations that own the senators and representatives.  Millionaires only make up 5% of the US population yet they account for 47% of all members of Congress.  Congress is full of lobbyists courting elected officials to vote in favor of large corporations and secure elusive contracts for them.  With the arrival of Super PAC's on the political scene, the bourgeoisie are given an unprecedented and disproportionate say in how our government is run.  The wealthy even manage to pay lower taxes than their secretaries.
The bourgeoisie influence extends far beyond just the government.  The media celebrates the wealthy, even if they contribute nothing to society.  The Kardashians are stars.  The media even pays attention to famous individuals with drug addictions.  When Micheal Jackson, Whitney Hudson, and Amy Winehouse died of drug overdoses or cocaine addictions, they suddenly became relevant again in the news.  Paris Hilton gets out of jail early for drunk driving and avoided jail time for possession of cocaine.  With our capitalist base, we are a nation for the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.

Modern Day Imperialism

Socialists have tended to opposed imperialism in all its forms.  I argue that even today, imperialism still exists and that the US is among the leaders of the imperial forces.  Within this imperial sphere of influence, the main motivator is of course the economy and the bourgeoisie.  A prime example comes off the heals of the Libyan Revolution and the NATO air-strikes.  Following the collapse of Gadhafi's rule on the country and the rise of the new government in its place, the American  Securities and Exchange Commission is launching investigations into Italy's ENI and France's Total oil companies, both of which have sizable assets in the country.  This lets American and British companies to have free reign over the oil fields in Libya.  The US is willing to go to any length to secure oil, like the 1953 coup in Iran that gave the Shah authoritarian powers and led up to the Iran Revolution in 1979.  With a new civil war brewing in Libya, it's only a matter of time before the US feels the effect of their imperial adventures in North Africa.

Q&A: To what extent does the economic base effect the superstructure?

I agree with Marx on how the economy is one of the most overwhelmingly important, if not, the most critical factor in shaping a society.  Like, Marx, I don't think it shapes very aspect of a civilization,but gives it its distinctive shape.  I came across an example of how economics affects people's religious views over Easter weekend in a Time magazine.  The topic was the emerging view that heaven was not a place on Earth, but rather, was achieved when a person helped those in need.  Giving food to the hunger created a little slice of heaven of Earth.  This view was being picked up by the middle-class and upper-class suburbanites.  The traditional view that heaven was a joyous place of peace and ease was being held en masse by the poorer castes of society.  They struggled all their lives to provide for themsleves and want to believe that their suffering will be rewarded.  Slaves had held the same belief before the Civil War and it still continues into the modern day in many black churches across America.  The famous Protestant Work ethic that Max Weber talked about is a reflection of the desired traits in a capitalist economy.  While the economy does not go as far as creating a religion about worshiping Adam Smith's Invisible Hand, it makes up a big part of our society.       

The Question of Evil

Why does evil exist in a world with a loving and omnipotent God?  Could it be that God does not love us or does not care (my personal belief)?  Another rational answer for many who want to believe in a more caring God bring up our free will.  We have the power to decide if we help or hurt one another.  So if God take away our freedom to ignore his teachings than he would take away our freedom to love him.  Devotion would be mindless and automatic.  The Devil, I would argue, does not exist; a demon exists inside of each of us and each of us can commit evil transgressions against our brothers and sisters.
On the topic of devotion and in order to tie in my last post on our morality vs God's morality, we can't really assign concepts like Good and Evil to humans and their actions, especially when someone brings in God.  If God has a higher sense of morality, and Islamic extremists claim to act on God's will, than how are we to say that 9/11 was an act of evil against us?  Such claim assumes that America is morally righteous, which it clearly isn't, as evident in these wars.  God could be acting on some higher moral code that he felt that these 19 Muslim men were fit to do in his name.  These wars might just serve to prove our lack of virtue and our country's demise.
Overall, this debate is part of a larger discussion of free will and what God wants us to do, and thus I can not fully get into this deep conversation, as it could take up an entire semester.

Teleological Suspension of the Ethical

In the Old Testament, one of the most morally debated passages is that where God ask Abraham to kill his own son.  Is it okay to commit murder if God permits it or commands it?  It is a good question.  If God is the ultimate source of God, than anything he would say should be the moral law.  But what if his word violates his own law?  In this case, God might have been testing Abraham's love for God over his young son, so since Isaac was never killed it wasn't really an ethical suspension.  However, suppose that Abraham did kill his son for God.  God would not have been upset with him, since he commanded him to kill his son, but the ordeal might send Abraham into his own personal hell.  Might he feel regret for killing his firstborn son?
A common response has been that we can't place our ethics above God's and I could agree with that, but I have the issue that God appears willing his own rules.

On a side note: I can that this passage might be exploited for some to commit murder in the name of their Lord.

Q&A: Is the Holy Bible meant to be taken literally?

The Bible contains many contradictions and many events proved to be false or having no real historical evidence.  In Psalms 145:9, it says: "The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works."  However on multiple occasions, he commits acts of murder and actively incites war between his subjects and favors one army over the other.  In Isaiah 14:21, it says: "Prepare a place to slaughter his sons for the sins of their forefathers; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities," yet, in Deuteronomy 24:16, it says: "Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin."  In the same testament, God is in contradiction about what he says, or his people say different things from him, etc.  Also of note, in Genesis,, on the first day of creation, God creates light, but isn't until the fourth day that he creates the sun and the other stars.  With all the errors, it seems to suggest that God did not write or divinely inspire the Bible.  It seems more logical to say that the Bible was a collection of writing from different authors without any contact with the others.  That said, I consider the only piece of wording that can and should be taken from the Bible is the morals within it.  The secular or earthly commandants of the Ten Commandants are a good set of morals, and Jesus preached a brotherly love ethics that draws parallels with other classical ethical philosophers like Socrates.

Q&A: Is God perfect?

From what I can interpret from my childhood's knowledge of the Bible, God appears to be an imperfect being.  In Genesis, creates the world in six and rests on the seventh.  Well why couldn't he create in all on one day and why would he have to rest if he was all powerful?  In haven, Lucifer and a third of God's angels rebel against the all mighty and all powerful Creator.  In the Garden of Eden, God creates a Tree of Knowledge and forbids Adam and Eve from eating from it as a test perhaps.  Yet despite his omniscience, he could not foretell this rebellion nor his creation's fallibility when they ate the apple (and if he knew that, why would he get mad?).  Another point I want to make, Why would a perfect God commit mass genocide by killing his people for not living up to his expectations? And why would he feel regret about it?  Can't an all powerful and all-loving God find another way to solve his problems?  It's another blatant contradiction how everyone is God's children yet he basically gives the Jews the right away to kill anyone in their way of their conquest of Israel in the Book of Joshua. Another point is why does evil exist if God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omnipresent?  Either God is imperfect or he doesn't care that much to intervene.

Solutions for Animal Ethics Vegetarians

Some vegetarians I've noticed are vegetarians or vegans out of a desire to limit human cruelty on animals.  A noble goal, but there might be some alternates for someone who respects animal rights but still want to consume meat.

1. Insects.  Many peoples across the globe consume insects as part of a daily food source.  While insects are still considered animals, many people do not give the same care to them as they do to other animals. 
2. Lab-grown meat.  While currently not sold in any supermarkets, scientists could grow meat in a laboratory using cow stem-cells someday.  

Treating women like a piece of celery

This post is really just to expand on this week's Q&A.  In it, I said that vegetarianism would not topple patriarchy, if it really exists (it would have helped if it was defined by the author, as many femenists have varying views on the term).  One of the problems that I had with Kheel's argument was how she linked together men's sexual and actual appetites.  I can understand the metaphor linking the two together, but the connection stops there.  Kheel seems to suggest that meat is fueling the objectivity of women in society.  I feel that if that was truly the case, then a lot of guys would have strange meat fetishes.  So even if everyone went vegan, nothing about how some men treat women would change.  Instead of being treated like a piece of meat, they would be treated like a piece of celery.

On 'Dominating' Animals

Which animals are okay to kill and which are not?  How far can humans subjugate animals?  Are we allowed to keep pets even if the tradition dates back to the savage times when we ate meat and subjugated women?  If you think about, if eating meat is dominating animals which only feeds the male oppression of females, then the explicit ownership of animals as objects for our entertainment (cats and their endless supply of videos) should only feed male obsession over women and what they could provide a man in terms of pleasure.  It can't be defended by tradition since vegans argue against meat consumption as a part of out traditional culture.

Also of note is killing animals that people can't identify with.  To me, Marti Kheel said vegeantrians have no qualms about eating plants in part because they cannot place themselves in the plant's metaphorical shoes.  It's much easier to imagine the pain a cow might go through as it screams and makes noise and therefore is easier one's self in the cow's shoes (or hooves?).  But people don't have problems with killing mosquitoes or spiders and I haven't heard anyone call for rights and protection for insects.  The questions comes, why is it not okay to kill a cow for food and clothing (leather) and okay to kill a spider, which feeds on crop destroying insects and disease carrying mosquitoes, if it is bugging you?  It's like having double standards for 'cute' animals and 'ugly' animals, both of which have a life and a brain and can no doubt feel pain.

Can animals live a better life if they are destined for the slaughter?

Theoretically, any animal that is destined for the slaughter could live a better life then it would if it was living in the world.  Cattle, just to focus on one animal, would live free-range and munch on all the grass they want to. The gazing cattle would never have to worry about finding food again.  They would even be given healthcare, as farmers would take care of it since people wouldn't want to buy sick cattle (irrational fears of mad cow disease among the consumers).  Finally, the cow's death would be humane and painless.
I will state that this is far from the current reality.  However, that could change if we, the consumers, demanded our beef to be free-range.  Businesses would adapt to the change in demand.  Plus, I also found free-range beef to taste better then factory farm beef.

The Tolerant Society

How would one create a perfectly tolerant society much like the one that Clark desires?  It would be very hard to create, more so if the nation is very diverse.  It would be easier if the nation that was trying to create a tolerant state was homogeneous.  However, if the people weren't prone to killing each other since they are ideologically similar, it isn't much of an achievement.  It might take centuries for a diverse nation to learn to come grips with each other however.
A republic or any government built upon democratic ideals might not be the right form of government for creating a tolerant society.  Representatives can be elected if they appealed solely to Christian conservatives. However, if followed logic, and Clark agrees, that someone cannot win a general election by playing to a specific demographic bloc, but that might be upset, seeing how Santorum has become a serious contender for the White House and is beating Obama in some polls.  Such a reactionary will not help create an unbiased and neutral government space for people to come together.

Q&A: Is it tolerant to force Tolerance?

Clark focused on making a tolerant society, even including people who have intolerant philosophies.  However, Clark points out that these groups must respect the neutral state and never resort to violent means.  Isn't ironic how the tolerant state must force tolerance and even resort to the ways it abhors in order to protect its neutral space?  It's just how the French Revolution needed tyranny and fear to create freedom.  Of course it is insensible to just allow the government to fall to a violent uprising, but how to ensure this protection doesn't became a form of censure and what happens to those who commit a 'crime of intolerance?'  

Scienctists and Faith

Despite the surface appearances of the conflicts of science and religion, many scientists have been able to accept both their empirical studies and supernatural beliefs.  Issac Newton, one of the most famous men in the field of physics, believed in the existence of a God.  To him, the arrangement of planets and stars were too perfect not to have been done by God.  Albert Einstein, arguably the most famous physicist, was a deist and perhaps, a pantheist, when he said: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."  In our modern day, physicists like Michio Kaku still believe in the existence of God even after their various inquires into the universe.  In Kaku's case, he believed the organization of the universe was too beautiful to have been created by random chance and must have been influenced by God in some way.

Q&A: A Compromise of Faith and Empiricism

Clark's essay, briefly, in one sentence, goes over the religions that combine theology and empiricism.  It is surprising how Clark just glances over this area where naturalism and supernaturalism are so beautifully combined. Faiths like Confucianism and Platonic theology call for the collection of knowledge.  Confucianism isn't very other-worldly, as its focuses (or at least the book did) on human interactions and virtue.  Plato focused on rational human thinking and despite all his spiritual thinking, his philosophy focused on human society and ethics.   Deism, as a basic pillar of the religion, believes in a rational God.  Buddhism, even with its spiritual elements of reincarnation, Buddha advocated personal mediation and enlightenment.
Regardless, Clark's essay is focused on creating a tolerant society.  It wouldn't really be tolerant if everyone was forced into tolerant religions; that wouldn't be a viable solution.  But it would still be an interesting point, like who ever heard of genocide committed in the name of Buddha?

The Multiverse

Though I am opposed to the Deterministic outlook on the universe, I do consider science to be the best bastion of knowledge there is.  The discussions in class remained me of a scientific theory that allows for free will and determinism to coexist, to some extent.
The theory starts with saying that each decision is more or less yes or no choice, or a series of said choices. The theory suggests that an alternate universe is created at very decision; one created for how things could have been in very possible instance.  For example: there are universes were the Nazis won World War Two, and ones that are identical to ours, but Joe had a cup of tea instead of his usual cup of coffee.  The absolute number of alternate universes is unfathomable.
So what does this mean in a philosophical sense?  It means that free will does exist, but only absolute free will is present in the universe that had the first decision.  Everything else is just a reaction to that.  So the people living in these alternate universes have some free will, but they are not responsible for the actions in their past since that was already determined by their counterparts in their parent universe and so forth.  However is it allows people to continue to make decisions on their own free will.

Free Will vs Determination

What seems like a more likely explanation for why we make decisions: Each and everyone one of us independently thinking about what to do, or a master puppeteer holding over 7 billion puppets?  From my viewpoint, it seems much simpler and more logical that decision making is decentralized (on the whole) left up to each person.  I just find it hard to believe that someone is controlling the thoughts and actions of every single person.  But doesn’t also apply to animals as well?  It seems to me that whoever or whatever is pulling the strings, that it has a lot on its hands to take care of.

Q&A: Does knowing if life is pre-determined or not change anything?

If you think about it, how does the knowledge of how we make decisions really effect everything?  If life is pre-determined for us, then we don't have to worry about making decisions.  But might consider suicide if they found out, but they would only commit suicide, much less even think about it, if they were pre-destined to do so.  If we make decisions purely based on our free will, then we'll keep moving through life making decisions. We won't become any 'freer' or suddenly break any chains that binded us.  Regardless of the ultimate truth, nothing would really change.  That's not to say that is makes the search for truth any less meaningless.

Q&A: If the Universe is pre-determined, who or what makes the decisions or put it all in motion?

Assuming that the Universe is determined, then it would make sense that some higher power is pulling the strings.  One possibility is the traditional Judea-Christian God.  However it seems unlikely to me that that is a solid explanation.  In the Book of Genesis, wouldn't it seem silly that God told Adam and Eve not to eat the Forbidden Fruit, but then determines that they will anyway? Or determines that humanity has degraded to such a point and needs to wipe most of them out with a giant flood?  These events are in the Bible and may not be true, if written by a mere mortal, so that prove all of reality is controlled by God.  However that doesn't explain why bad things happen, like churches that run orphanages burning up.  So appears the Universe can not be ran by a benevolent God.
It was also suggested in the article that everything runs off an equation or that anything can be determined with this equation.  However it brings up the question of what set everything in motion to be determined by this equation of everything.

Selfish vs. Altruistism

Can a person be selfish and altruistic?  I would argue that you can.  My definition allows for a little bit of flexibility.  A person can be altruistic if they hardy gain anything from helping another person.  A person might help someone because they want to help or they desire to be altruistic.  These may be selfish wants, but what really does a person gain compared to the person in need of help?  So long as the person has the desire to help people and isn’t solely motivated by selfish desires, then the action can be altruistic and a little bit selfish. Of course, a person can only be so selfish and still considered to be altruistic.

Altruistic acts and Acts of Supererogation

I have already defined an act to be altruistic if it done mainly to help others at little or no benefit to the helping person, and goes above a certain call of duty or expectation.  To perform an act of  supererogation is like to perform an act of heroism.  The main difference between the two (altruistic and  supererogation) is degree.  It would be altruistic to donate an additional twenty dollars to a charity.   Supererogation might call for hundreds or thousands of dollars.  Usually an act of  supererogation would involve great risk of physical harm.  Such acts are often done with thinking, just enough thought process to decide to do it.  Taking the risk to save someone from an oncoming train is heroic, and altruistic.  Helping the person get back up on the platform is altruistic, but not heroic.   

Q&A: Who is more altrustic, Rambert or Rieux?

Contrary to what Hounchin writes, I believe that Rieux is actually the more altruistic of the two men in the book, The Plague.  Rieux goes out of his way to help the many people who are affected by the disease in the city.  Rambert on the other hand is not altruistic, least not in my definition.  Rambert appears to help the poor citizens since he does not want to look like the healthy man who isn't helping.  He is made uncomfortable by his position so he helps the sick, though he would rather leave the city if he could. Rambert isn't doing this to help people, just so he can help people.  A true altruistic person, like Rieux, would help people for the sake of helping people and isn't all that too concerned with himself.   

Q&A: The Dark Side of Altruistism

Does the altruistic acts of a kind-hearted person with good intentions have unintended misgivings?  Suppose a caring individual sees a hungry homeless man on the streets.  In order to help this struggling man, the caring individual gives the man a sandwich so he won’t go hungry that day.  This simple act may have helped me today but what will he do for food the next day?  Will the same caring individual be there tomorrow with another sandwich?  Soon the man might become dependent upon others for food on a daily basis.  The homeless man will find no self-improvement as the caring individual continues to increase his happiness for ‘helping’ people. 

Q&A: Is the Golden Mean the best way to live our lives?

Aristotle proposed that the best way to live our lives is in balance.  Too much gluttony and we suffer serious health risks.  Too little appetite for food also carries its own health risks.  So its best to moderate our daily intake.  And when was the last time you heard about someone dying form eating too healthy?  In any situation I think about it, balancing out our lives just seems to work perfectly just as Aristotle said it would.

Q&A: What would a Aristotelian Society look like?

Aristotle did not advocate a government that would place absolute in the hands of one person, or a few. Despite that, Aristotle still believed that the government needed to have far-reaching control over its citizens. He viewed child-raising to be too important to leave to parents, and instead give that job to the government. The collective raising of children would led to a collective mindset.  At some point or another in time, society would become social-capitalist in both the economy and government.  The children might become fiercely patriotic, as the public child-raising will extend much further then our public education does;  it would be hard to say if a government would honestly raise the kids and not turn them into Prussian-style military armies.

Aristotle and Happiness

What is the best way to bring happiness to oneself?  Aristotle seemed to advocate a life solely devoted to personal reflection and deep thinking.  Yet complete focus in just area of human experience seems limited for Aristotle, more so when you consider that he believed that life needed to be lived by the means of lifestyles.  Aristotle probably wanted a balance between self-thought, pleasure, and honor and politics.  Experiences in one of the above mentioned lifestyles could help bring better satisfaction or understanding in the other areas.  For example: seeing how people interact in politics might help you better understand human nature and yourself. It seems so unlikely that Aristotle would have expected people to live fulfilling and examined lives if they didn’t experience the world.

What came first: The Chicken or the Egg?

From my standpoint, I believe that the egg came before the chicken.  Some time in prehistory, there was a chicken-like creature that laid eggs.  From one of these eggs, the chicken was born.  So the egg preceded the chicken.  So where did the chicken-like creature came from?  Like the chicken, it was born from the egg of a similar, yet different species.  And it keeps going back to the other chicken-like-like creatures, and down through dinosaurs, and then later down to the first land-dwelling egg layer, then to fish, until you arrive at the first life form on Earth.  What find to be a better question is “Just how does life evolve out non-living organic matter.” Or “How do the billions of living cells of our body form one thinking, conscience being?”  The mysteries of life really puzzle me.

Tripartite Structure of the Soul

Plato believed that the human mind/soul is made up Reason, Passion (emotions and mental needs and wants), and Appetite (bodily needs and wants), which I think is fair division of the human soul.  Overall, this subject of the human mind is about where I only fully agree with Plato on.  It's important to ensure that no single triat of our conscience rules us.  Complete Reason would bring us to a world of bored yet safe automatons.  Complete Passion would lead to anarchy and Complete Appetite would lead to obese, drunk, high behemoths.  So its necessary that Reason keeps the other two in check, so if we wanted to go skydiving, we would do it safely and smartly.  It works out well when someone uses reason to make decisions about passion or appetite.  For example: You may want to binge eat chocolate, but that would be unhealthy and leave you feeling sick later.  It might be a better idea to save your money and go on a trip to Europe.  

The World of Forms

Does Plato's perfect abstract realm of ideals actually exist?  I'm skeptical on this higher dimension of existence. We discussed in class that noting everything has a counterpart in the World of Forms, like there is no Ideal iPod.  Instead there would be Ideal forms of the natural components that make up an iPod.  But can't that statement be taken further?  Anything physical, natural or not, breaks down into elements.  There is no Ideal horse, just Ideal carbon atoms.  So Plato's argument that our souls remember seeing an Ideal horse and that allows us to recognize horses is invalid since logically, shouldn't everything physical in the World of Ideas be atoms, something we can't see even today?   But what about the abstract concepts that can't be broken down, like Goodness?  I suppose that better question is: Does Good exist?  It's a subjective term that is varies to great degree with each culture.  But if I argue that Good is subjective, Plato could argue that some cultures don't truly understood Good.  So it's hard to argue away Good and other all of Plato's World of Forms.  

Q&A: Does knowing Good really make you good?

Plato and his teacher Socrates had the theory that a person who knows what good is, will always do good and never do evil.  At first the thought seems highly illogical for men such as these two foundations of Western philosophy.  Think about a situation where a single parent is struggling to feed his\her kids.  To help fill their stomachs, the parent steals bread from a local bakery.  Stealing is an evil thing to do, but nearly anyone wouldn't want the kids to starve, so is satisfying the kids' huger negate the evil act of thievery?  From my point of view I feel that is 'good' to steal under the circumstances.  I haven't a clue has to what kind of answer Plato might have.

Q&A: A Platonic Society

What would a Platonic society look like if one had ever existed?  While the book argues that Plato would be disgusted by the greedy engines of modern capitalism, I don't imagine that Plato would entirely remove capitalism form his Republic.  A person's reason should only check a person's impulses, but they would still want to buy luxuries that they don't really need.  As such, laws might be in place to limit how a person can buy or there would be increased taxes to pay for other services (like public health care) to limit how much a person can buy after necessaries.

The leadership of Plato's Republic would come to resemble something similar to the Emperors of Rome.  With the unchecked power given to the Guardians or 'philosopher-kings' (and queens I imagine too), they had unlimited potential for good and evil.  Since the succession of rulers is chosen by humans, the government could not pick a Marcus Aurelius everytime and sometimes might have picked a Caligula.  Even assuming that every Guardian was a philosopher, it would do no good as some philosophers have radical views that could kill or harm the populace, if said ruler felt a genocidal rampage was justified.

Q&A: A Confucian Society

Confucian was as much as a political philosopher as he theorized about human nature.  I think in Confucius's society, the rulers would rule with absolute power.  This would be the the ultimate test of a ruler's virtue.  If he was virtuous, than he would use the unlimited power invested in him wisely.  There would be system of checks and balance,  but the king or emperor would have advisors to help him rule effectively.
People would have laws in place to encourage virtue.  Adultery would be illegal since moral families are necessary for a moral society.  In a Confucian society, rewards would be generous and punishments in order to encourage a virtuous populace.  Like many of the military strategists who recommended a society based of a Confucian style of governance, these rewards and punishments would extended to everyone, regardless of social ranking or wealth.
As for the relationship between the economy and the government, I see none so I think it would be possible for a laissez faire economy to emerge.  That being said, I found it believable that someone could advocate Confucian Socialism so the people would have only their moral decisions left to handle.

Q&A: What was Confucius's view of the Universe?

Confucius lived in ancient China when its people were still ignorant of much of the world we know today.  They even thought of themselves as the center of the world calling themselves ‘The Middle Kingdom.’  The Chinese kingdoms had little or no contact with Japan or the other Pacific islands.  China’s contact with the west did stretch as far as Rome, but knowledge of Europe must have been foggy at best.  It would seem extremely unlikely that Confucius or any other Chinese philosopher would theorize about planets, much less other solar systems and the prospect of alien worlds.  From the reading, it would seem that Confucius believed the universe existed only of the limited scope of the Earth that was known to them and Heaven. 

Altruism vs. Self-Interest

What makes up human morality?  Why is it that we help others?  It seems unlikely that we help others in need purely out of our self interest.  People may help the less fortunate because it makes them feel good about themselves.  But what about self-sacrifice? Do people simply give up their lives to feel good, even if just for a moment?  That doesn’t seem convincing.  So are people naturally altruistic?  Well, perhaps not.  If that was the case, wouldn’t there be more charity donations? Would the Red Cross still have a dire need for blood donations?  I would argue that people aren’t truly altruistic either.  It’s more like we are a mixture of both.  We aren’t greedy creatures or selfishless angels, at least not all the time.  We help others from time to time but sometimes we fail to extend a simple helping hand to those in need.

Q&A: Which philosopher, Mencius or Hsun-tzu, is correct about human nature?

Due to the fact that both Mencius's and Hsun-tzu's ideas appear to be mutually exclusive, logic would dictate that only one viewpoint can be correct.  I think that Mencius’s view of human nature is ignorant of many of the facts that surrounded him.  For one, Mencius lived during the Warring States Period, a time of near constant warfare that had already lasted for a hundred years by the time of his writings. That doesn’t discredit his ideas but it seems odd how he would theorize that humans are naturally virtuous during a time of great strife and violence.  But there are times that people do not act spontaneously to help others in need.  A 78-year old man was struck by a car in 2008 in Hartford, Conn.  No one, pedestrians nor drivers, on this busy street helped him.  In fact, some people walked up to him to get a closer check at the man but didn’t help him up.  It wasn’t until police, who were responding to another call, drove by him was an ambulance called.  The police chief even said: "we no longer have a moral compass."  In effect, humans are more closely akin to Hsun-tzu’s view of human nature of selfish, self-concerned beings.

Philosophy Toolkit: Theism Vs. Desim

When I looked down the list in the Philosophy Toolkit the paragraph on Theism and Deism caught my attention since I considered myself to a Deist.  To me, the Universe appears to work a little too perfectly to have been built just by random chance.  But while any other theist might say that, I can't see how an omnipresent God who intervenes in our daily lives but lets thousands of pious individuals suffer and die everyday of hunger, disease, and so many other ill fates.  So instead I believe that God is some enlightened being who created the Universe and let it run its course and we are just by-products.

About Me

My name is Andrew Nelson and this is my first year at MCLA.  I am a Computer Science major with an interest in robotics that I acquired from my high school's Robotics team back in Quincy, Mass.  Philosophy has caught my attention recently after reading the book, Sophie's World, from which I began to seriously question what is reality.  As such I am considering a philosophy minor or possibly declaring a second major.